Viewing page 49 of 58
It looks like you're using a mobile device. We recommend using a physical keyboard for transcription entry.
learned in concrete, unforgetable terms the meaning of social reaction. Our picket lines have been attacked by police, our members have been jailed and fined, our artistic productions have been censored and destroyed by backward critics and art dictators. In the pages of Mr. Heart's Mirror we have been presented in a disgustingly densational fashion as a prefatory gang of libertines and "Reds." From the very beginning our struggles have involved the need to protect the negro and foreign born artists against discrimination. At this very moment the Hearst Press, the Liberty League and all organized forces of reaction are crying for the abolition of the whole system of Relief and Government Projects. In their drive to lower the standard of living of the American people and to break the power of organized labor, these reactionary groups attack also the cultural and creative expression of progressive thought. The policy of the government in the fact of these reactionary attacks constitutes a retreat which can be halted only by organizations like our own. We artists are met with a double responsibility--not only must we protect ourselves in our individual names, there rests upon us also the obligation to defend the advancement of culture. What does the experience of the Artists' Union mean to all artists? We can with the authority of this experience assert the following conclusions: Organizations of artists on a common basis is possible despite all esthetic differences. Organized and concerted action is imperative in order to advance the interests of artists to defeat reaction. Every improvement of the economic condition of the artist on government projects has been obtained through the existence, guidance and mass actions of the organization of artists. The fear that organization is incompatible with individuality is unfounded. It is precisely the existence of organization that guarantees the perpetuation of individual and esthetic freedom. The establishment of arbitrary esthetic standards as a basis of organization is unsound and detrimental. We, whose struggle against Fascism stems directly from our efforts to work and maintain ourselves as artists, feel certain that you will recognize the community of your interests and ours. The fight against War and Fascism for the defense of culture takes its most concrete form in the defense of economic standards. We hope and expect that out of this Congress will be formed a permanent organization with an aggressive program against the menace of War and Fascism. To such an organization we pledge our full and unqualified support.  THE RENTAL POLICY KATHERINE SCHMIDT I have been asked as Chairman of the Committee on Rentals of the American Society of Painters, Sculptors and Gravers to report to you on the rental policy adopted by that society. The rental question is first of all an economic question. The amiable and pleasant existence of the Society would not have been jarred into the projection of the Rental Resolution except for the economic collapse. Financial hardships awakened members of the society to the realization that if the demand for the use of their work continued, it was high time they be paid for that use. You are all aware of the fact that within our lifetime there has been a remarkable growth of exhibition centers in this country. Art is no longer shown in one or two metropolitan areas. Besides commercial galleries and clubs interested in the plastic arts, a string of museums has been built over the length and breadth of our country. These museums are large impressive buildings, monuments to the wealth and power of the nation. The communities in which the museums were built were asked to support them. How could interest in them be stimulated; how but by bringing to them art which would interest them, art to which they would respond? As a practical matter only contemporary American art could consistently serve that purpose. Because of the high insurance charges on "old masters" and the heavy shipping costs for foreign shows, the average American museum (and even the wealthy museum) could afford such luxuries only now and then. Therefore, American shows, cheap in cost, began to be assembled and widely exhibited. Moreover, museum directors discovered that the public is interested in American art. That fact produced a greater demand for American shows. Any artist of reputation can verify this out of his own experience. The development of the exhibition field, just sketched, should once for all dispose of the notion so frequently advanced from museum sourced that the living American artist ought to be grateful to the directors of American museums for the opportunity to exhibit. With few exceptions )the Whitney Museum may be cured as an outstanding example) the choice was forced upon directors by the realities of the situation, and it was not made voluntarily from solicitous interest in the American artist. The museums' treatment of the living American artist can leave no doubt that this is the fact. For the most part the American artist's work is used only for exhibition purposes, to furbish up museum activities, and to keep the museums alive. The annual 
Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.